Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I Thought Obama was going to put an end to this evil Bush era practice. Where is the outcry ? I wounder if there are any ties to Obama and his fund raising. (I wounder how many of them have osamas death picture)
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/10/13/viacom-obama-townhall-is-not-political.php
--------------------------------------



Chief executives at the biggest U.S. companies saw their pay jump sharply in 2010, as boards rewarded them for strong profit and share-price growth with bigger bonuses and stock grants.

The median value of salaries, bonuses and long-term incentive awards for CEOs of 350 major companies surged 11% to $9.3 million, according to a study of proxy statements conducted for The Wall Street Journal by management consultancy Hay Group.

The rise followed a year in which pay for the top boss was flat at these companies.

Viacom Inc. CEO Philippe P. Dauman topped the list. He received compensation valued at $84.3 million, more than double his 2009 pay, thanks largely to equity awards in a renewed contract.

The Journal measured CEO pay by total direct compensation, which includes salary, bonuses and the granted value of stock, stock options and other long-term incentives given for service in fiscal 2010. That figure excludes the value of exercised stock options and the vesting of restricted stock. The survey covered the 350 biggest companies that filed proxies between May 1, 2010, and April 30, 2011.

For the surveyed CEOs, the sharpest pay gains came via bonuses, which soared 19.7% as profits recovered, especially in some hard-hit industries.

Profits and share prices increased even more than CEO compensation. Net income rose by a median of 17%; shareholders at those companies enjoyed a median return, including dividends, of 18%.

CEOs of media companies claimed four of the top 10 spots: Mr. Dauman at Viacom, plus the chiefs of CBS Corp., Walt Disney Co. and Time Warner Inc.

Another media CEO, News Corp.'s Rupert Murdoch, ranked 52nd, with total compensation valued at $16.5 million. A spokesman for News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal, declined to comment.

Mr. Dauman, Viacom's CEO since 2006, achieved his $84.3 million largely due to one-time equity awards valued at $54.3 million as part of a five-year employment contract signed in April 2010. In extending his contract, directors cited his operational and financial leadership.

Viacom shares appreciated 33% during calendar year 2010 as compared with the 13% increase in the S&P 500,'' a Viacom spokeswoman said. The company benefited last year from a rebound in the advertising market and improved ratings at its cable networks.

Larry Ellison, the billionaire founder of Oracle Corp., took second place. Long ranked among the highest-paid chiefs, he received compensation valued at $68.6 million for the year ended last May 31. It mostly consisted of options valued at $61.9 million. (The package was included in a November Wall Street Journal survey of CEO pay that slightly overlapped the current study.)

Oracle declined to comment.

CBS CEO Leslie Moonves landed the No. 3 spot with compensation valued at $53.9 million. The total includes a $27.5 million bonus, which "reflected the company's remarkable year under his leadership,'' a CBS spokesman recalled. "He led CBS to results that produced extraordinary growth in shareholder value'' as returns of 37.4% outpaced media peers, the spokesman said.

Media mogul Sumner Redstone controls Viacom and CBS through National Amusements, his family holding company, although the CBS and Viacom boards set executive pay through their independent compensation committees.

Martin E. Franklin, the longtime head of Jarden Corp., was fourth highest-paid. His $45.2 million package consisted mostly of restricted shares tied to higher per-share earnings or stock price at the maker of consumer goods. (An executive gets such shares free after sticking around for several years, but they sometimes come with a performance test, as Mr. Franklin's did.)

Jarden products include K2 skis and Bicycle cards.

Jarden directors hope to propel long-term performance "by promoting the creation of stockholder value and maximizing the growth in the company's earnings,'' they said in its latest proxy.

Performance-based incentives worked well before, a Jarden spokesman said. Its share price has "increased by over 1,000% since Mr. Franklin joined the company in 2001, on the back of significant revenue and earnings growth.'' Mr. Franklin relinquishes the CEO spot at next month's annual meeting, but will remain executive chairman.

DirecTV Group Inc.'s Michael White ranked fifth with a $32.6 million package. The lion's share came from options and performance-based stock. He took the helm of the satellite-TV provider in January 2010. DirecTV doesn't expect to give Mr. White any more equity grants for the rest of his three-year employment agreement, a spokesman said.

Several chief executives experienced sizable drops in pay. Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s Ray Irani, who retired Friday, saw his 2010 compensation shrink 71% to $14.9 million.

The decline mainly grew out of a shareholder backlash that prompted the big oil concern to set a new policy last year cutting its longtime leader's maximum compensation by nearly three quarters.

But Mr. Irani received an additional $70 million in long-term payouts in 2010—largely as a result of meeting performance goals set by Occidental's board in 2007. (The Journal does not count the payout of prior awards as part of annual compensation.)

While serving as executive chairman until 2014, Mr. Irani still will have most compensation based on long-term performance, an Occidental spokesman said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...32105245012.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_News_BlogsModule
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
I Thought Obama was going to put an end to this evil Bush practice. Where is the outcry ?
--------------------------------------
What outcry? If you were a CEO, I'll bet you would think you were worth every penny you made. These annual CEO bashing statistics are highly flawed. They are not given enough context. Most CEO's get a major portion of thier compensation through stock options. When they get them and when they cash them in makes a big difference. Even a CEO whose company has had a bad year may own lots of stock options from previous years. He may decide it is a good time to cash some of those in, in which case he shows a giant compensation that year. The headlines will scream about how much he made in a bad year. But he was essentially taking his own money out of the bank. It's just a tried and true headline getter for the press to drum up more hate against the rich.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
You know what,bro... you really need to learn how to message it a little more. This could have been fun... ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
You know what,bro... you really need to learn how to message it a little more. This could have been fun... ;)
It could still be fun. We could write a post blaming it all on the unions. That would light up the boards. :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
Why does this surprise anyone? These men are masters of manipulating bureaucracies. It is a basic requirement of becoming a CEO, especially of a company you didn't create
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,760 Posts
I have no problem with fair compansation to CEOs of good well performing companies. What I have a problem with is the manipulation many CEOs do that hurts the everyday stock holders, like all of you guys with 401Ks and stock portfolios. Some of these guys (not all) do things to make the stock value jump just as their bonus time comes up, just to have the stock slump later on unmet expectations and or un-forseen losses. It is cheating and it should not be allowed. Bonuses should be based on yearly or better yet, multi yearly average valuations not spot valuations. I would have no problem with a CEO making 11% more money if the company also made 11% more money for all of it's stock holders.

Oh and this has nothing to do with the government. Not all of our problems can be tied to the government. Some like this one are due to the cozy relationship that CEOs have with the boards of many publicly traded companies, which determine thier compensation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
You have to be asking yourself... were the hell did that 11% come from ? Could it have really all come from one sector ? -The only sector being propped up by government funds ? :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
I have no problem with fair compansation to CEOs of good well performing companies. What I have a problem with is the manipulation many CEOs do that hurts the everyday stock holders, like all of you guys with 401Ks and stock portfolios. Some of these guys (not all) do things to make the stock value jump just as their bonus time comes up, just to have the stock slump later on unmet expectations and or un-forseen losses. It is cheating and it should not be allowed. Bonuses should be based on yearly or better yet, multi yearly average valuations not spot valuations. I would have no problem with a CEO making 11% more money if the company also made 11% more money for all of it's stock holders.

Oh and this has nothing to do with the government. Not all of our problems can be tied to the government. Some like this one are due to the cozy relationship that CEOs have with the boards of many publicly traded companies, which determine thier compensation.
I agree. Like I said, since their compensation includes cashing in existing stock options, they may not have actually had compensation increases of 11%. Much of it was capitalizing on the run-up in stock prices over the last 3 years.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,241 Posts
SEE? This is what happens with low taxes on the ubber highly compensated. They make huge money and don't hire people. Why hire people if you are making a ton of money with fewer people?

Proof that they only hire when there is work needed and NOT when tax advantages present themselves. Work that is only driven by the lower 95% spending.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
SEE? This is what happens with low taxes on the ubber highly compensated. They make huge money and don't hire people. Why hire people if you are making a ton of money with fewer people?

Proof that they only hire when there is work needed and NOT when tax advantages present themselves. Work that is only driven by the lower 95% spending.

They are hiring. the fortune 500 companies that shed 2.6M jobs here since 07 has hired about 95% of them back. The only problem is that the hiring is in places like India and China. The US is bleeding jobs never to return. I can't blame the companies 100% for that. Sure they deserve some of the blame but most of the blame should go to our idotic elected officials that set global trade policies that make it nearly impossible to invest in domestic jobs. Its not a D or R thing either. Both are exually inept in this area.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,241 Posts
They are hiring. the fortune 500 companies that shed 2.6M jobs here since 07 has hired about 95% of them back. The only problem is that the hiring is in places like India and China. The US is bleeding jobs never to return. I can't blame the companies 100% for that. Sure they deserve some of the blame but most of the blame should go to our idotic elected officials that set global trade policies that make it nearly impossible to invest in domestic jobs. Its not a D or R thing either. Both are exually inept in this area.
They are both idiots. That is for sure. They both use economics as the shield to hide their horrible social policy agendas.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top